*** Your right,
scientists could take the opportunity to use Dinotopia as
a

platform to address
the inconsistancies between science and fiction, however,

that is unlikely
given that this could be interpreted as criticism, and counter
to

"promoting" the
aesthetic qualities of the exhibit as the fictional
masterpiece

it truly
is.<<

Lets
not shoot the museum before the exhibit is set up. I have high regards for the
people who set up exhibits at the Smithsonian (I know them, Mike
Brett-Surman?s wife is one of them and she does one hell of a job! Not to
mention Linda Deck, Ralph Champan?s wife).

*** I
also have every confidence they will do the display justice ( that wasn't the
original point of contention however).

> > Gurney's
creation is a fictional world and while it is appealing to many>
of> > us with a> > common interest in dinosaurs, it still
should be separated from the> science.

Scientists of the
Museum can explain why Dinotopia isn't science, if it's well done, it will
perfectly work.

***That would be
fine if they were willing to undertake the responsibility of explaining the
differences.

It's been my
experience that many museum exhibits that already exist are lacking in updated
info and

sometimes include
errors in everything from incorrect names or spellings on display specimens
right

up to vague or
archaic explanatory content. If they can't keep the inhouse displays
current, what hope

is there of
addressing new and / or temporary travelling exhibits?<<

Again,
lets wait and see the exhibit before it?s condemned. I wonder if the Aero
Space people got upset when Star Wars was set up
there?

***
Agreed. If they capitalize on the opportunity to explain how the dinosaurs in
Dinotopia differ from conventional dinosaurs,
clarification

will
be established and we can pick another topic to debate. I wonder how the
Hutt's would have felt if some off- world peddlars had set
up

an
Aero Space exhibit on Tatooine before thebig "cosmic slap".

This is a fact
scientists can also explain: when new fossils are found, scientists and
paleoartists have to change their way to show or paint dinosaurs, while in a
fantasy characters have to stay quite the same.

In my case, I just
finished a _Nanotyrannus_ drawing: it's lipless, of course, because it's the
most likely. But in my comic-strip, I'll go on drawing lips on my
"dinosaur-like characters" - well, all right, I don't speak about true
dinosaurs here - because it's easier to give'em mimics, and because I prefer
them like that.

Back to
paleoart...

I began to draw
paleoart after watching WWD on tv, the scaly _Utahraptor_ with wrong
hands and all those kind of things, now I draw all little coelurosaurs
feathered, even my _Nanotyrannus_ is a bit fluffy.

*** In the right
arena or framework, there is nothing wrong with extrapolating on
reality.

I am a big fan of
fantasy art when it's well executed and presented in an
appropriate

forum. I just
like to take extra steps in preventing confusion amongst individuals
who

might innocently
come to false conclusions when the material is presented in
close

proximity to
science related material. As an experiment, stand sometime in a

paleontology museum
exhibit and just listen in on some of the comments and

conclusions people
make based on the information before them. You may be
surprised

to see how easily
they are lead astray.<<

I?m
more surprised when they get it right!

***
Touche' !

MS wrote, in a
previous post:

> If scientific
(paleontological ) "fact" is based on physical evidence or>
repeatability, then truly "scientifically accurate" paleo art must be>
restricted to illustrations of skeletal material or paleo ichnological>
evidence. Fleshed out reconstructions of dinosaurs, etc...
although> referenced to skeletons, myology, modern analogs and
developed in> collaboration with paleontologists STILL remain
speculative in terms of> outer integument, other external soft
anatomical features, color, etc. . ..> While this imagery remains our
closest hope of experiencing a living> terrestrial dinosaur, it is both
hypothetical and speculative, subject to> artistic taste and skill and
( as much as I might not like to admit it)> inexorably bound to the
annals of a nebulous "grey" zone, from an academic> standpoint.

Of course it's
speculation! But IMHO it's all the fun we have, us, the paleoartists, to draw
the dinosaurs as how we think they were, based on scientific evidence, and
it's sometimes up to us to explain to people the difference between our
illustrations and dino-fantasy (see the link below)

*** I agree.
We can only go by the best information available in assessing the
"look"

of living dinosaurs
and until we invent a way of retrieving live examples from the
past,

or develop new
techniques of recovering more detail from fossil specimens, this is
as

good as it
gets. Entering into discussions with the public, based on the artwork,
is a

good jumping off
point from which to make people aware of the newest discoveries
in

paleontology.
This is however, complicated enough in and of itself, without having
to

"explain away" the
false and gratuitous embellishments of movie makers. Again the

combination of
movie producers and scientific advisors is a bad mix, when the
advisors

are there merely as
"propoganda" and the advisory recommendations are ignored
in

favor of
sensationalism and ticket sales. Dinosaurs only based on information
provided

by paleontologists
would have been just as intriguing on the big screen as the
"improved"

Hollywood versions,
but would have avoided all "corrections and explanations"
endured

by the academics
after the fact. To avoid the confusion, either produce "state of the
art"

dinosaurs using the
best current information, or lose the advisors and make a
glorified

Godzilla flick
where there are no false impressions about what you are looking
at.<<

But
then when ever a new movie is done and is done incorrectly the public will be
even more convinced that Hollywood is always right. I say, let them make the
animals the way they want. I don?t want to start telling people that Hollywood
is right J I?d
rather have the opportunity to correct them (the public) which engages more
dialogue then to just say Hollywood is right. Besides, the majority of the
public really doesn?t care unless there?s some score involved.

***
I'd rather have the satisfaction of experiencing "real" dinosaurs, regardless
of the mechanics and motivations of the movie industry. At least WWD
attempted it and I was far less offended by the implied
behaviour they
invented to suit their storyline than the some of the meaningless manipulation
on the big budget epic. ( For the record, I still enjoyed JP for what it
was, it's just the anatomical sideshow impaired the impact it could
have had.)

Do you wanna drive
little kids to the museum ? In this case the "Dinotopia" exhibition can help
very much, and scientists will explain them why the Dinotopia characters
aren't feathered and why we think now dromies were feathered, they can show
them photos or feathered fossils, and kids will understand very well, don't
worry!!!

Plus, they'll see a
big _Allosaurus_, _Triceratops_ or other dinosaurs skeletons; even if they
aren't well mounted (and scientists can expain them why, it takes time to
correct it), they'll see 'em; maybe they'd never came to see 'em without the
Dinotopia exhibition.

And it's the same
for some amateurs.

***If kids are
interested enough to want to see Dinotopia, they will convince
their

parent(s) to take
them wherever it's on display. If they make a trip to an art museum

and a paleontology
museum, it will only teach them more and increase their

knowledge of the
world. If the parent(s) aren't willing to make the effort to
take

the kids to see
both, I consider that to be a bad reflection on their function as
a

parent. Also,
I don't think I remember a single instance of visiting a paleontology

museum or exhibit,
where I've encountered a paleontologist sitting out in the

public galleries,
addressing questions by random passersby about the content
of

gallery
displays.<<

Right!
Do you really believe parents will take their kids to several museums instead
of one? If you do you really have a lot of faith in parents. So, a
paleontologist needs to be sitting in the gallery to answer peoples questions?
When was the last time you?ve been at the Smithsonian? ON a really busy day?
You can barely walk around! Let alone have someone, anyone, answer peoples
questions. Though at the San Diego Natural History Museum they do have docents
to answer people?s questions (I wonder if I shouldn?t have gone for that
job?). Having a ?professional? paleontologist sitting at a gallery would stop
them from doing their work.

***
You took the words right out of my mouth! If you check out Luc's comment
just above my response, he's saying that scientists will be on hand at the
Dinotopia exhibit to explain to the kids what's going on. I'm saying
that is hardly practical. Oh, and also, I'm not saying parents WILL
take their kids to several museums, I'm saying they
SHOULD.

Dinotopia is
fantasy, it's a dream, and it's easy to see it's a dream. There's a difference
with showing dino-fantasy, poesy, and going to the pictures to watch again
this §#6*ù&&!! JP which is really confusing for common people and show
'em erroneous things - sorry, I definitively don't like
JP.

*** Dinotopia is
fantasy, but you know what, there are a lot of impressionable young
kids

who have a lot of
interest in dinosaurs and will "believe in" anything they're exposed to. . .

wrong with
indulging their fantasies ( it helps foster great creative minds), but all the
same

they are
susceptable to drawing incorrect conclusions based on the material they are

presented with and
the context it is presented in. Dinosaur exhibits and Dinotopia are
both

valid and
legitimate in their own ways, but still require separation. I even
vaguely remember

reading accounts
regarding a small component of the adult population that believe there
are

places on earth
where you can encounter dinosaurs in the wild. I'm not referring to
people

who are
dillusional, cryptozoologists, or the like. . . just misinformed everyday
individuals who

didn't learn in
school ( for whatever reason) that 65 mya we had a little bump in the night
with

a big rock from
outer space. No different than the percentage of the population that
still

believe dinosaurs
and cavemen existed together. Science and media access have gone a
long

way to dispel
popular myths, but the information hasn't reached everyone yet, not by a long

shot!<<

But
your putting your values onto others, you?re trying to tell people what they
can and can not do. You can?t do that and not except some negative feedback
from someone (Not me mind you). It seems to me that many people who have a
great desire for dinosaurs are rather restrictive and selfish (to a degree)
about dinosaurs. I?ve voiced my opinion on this list to a great degree, trying
to ?correct? people and I?ve gotten rather chastised by people on this list to
a point where I?d rather not voice my opinion, not correct people, and these
are people who know about dinosaurs! IF we can?t do that to ourselves, then
how can we do that with the public?

***
I'm not interested in subjecting people to my values ( except through my
subjective interpretation of dinosaur within my art ). Separation of a
factual exhibit from a fictional one simply makes it easier to absorb the
concepts and content of each exhibit independantly. Whatever conclusions
and ideas they generate from the experience is entirely their own. When
you eat pizza with a beer, it's easier if you don't try to swallow both at the
same time. Tends to get messy. . .

TF:> > > This
is why I write my How to Draw Dinosaurs articles for Prehistoric> >
Times.(snip)

OK, I don't have a
PhD, I'm only an amateur paleoartist for JUST one year or so, and this
discussion made me ask questions to myself, if I should go on with paleoart,
and especially the following:

*** My opinion is
that paleo art is still a noble endeavor. We all want to
know

what dinosaurs
looked like and we're not likely to see any of the extinct ones

any time soon. So,
the nice part is that by using the information available to

reconstruct the
appearance of dinosaurs, many artists (in spite of their individual

styles)
are developing a sort of "collective" image of what various species
of

dinosaur probably
looked like. As new information is made available and

processed through
artistic renderings the relative inconsistencies are
gradually

eliminated and the
result is a roughly "reliable" impression of what dinosaurs

may have looked
like. Since our choices are hypothetical imagery tempered

by
artistic flare or no imagery at all, I elect to go with some visual
semblance

of the truth rather
than a visual "void". A dinosaur book without illustrations or

photos is like cake
without icing, you can choke it down but you better have

that glass of milk
handy! (My personal opinion, but I'm biased and proud of
it!)<<

The
biggest problem I have is when they get the anatomy wrong. Like how many
fingers or claws a sauropod has. I check that all the time. The rest of the
animal can look great, but if they have that wrong, well, then how can I trust
their work? How many artist (not on this list) who do layman dinosaur books
get the dinosaurs done wrong? You can try to work with the publisher, but
they?ll just say they have their own artist and not give you the time of day.

***
Out of the realm of my experience. Every publisher I've worked with so
far has been more than gracious, when I've explained to them the reasoning for
the way in which the illustrations need to be
developed.

You
can work with paleontologist and many of them will tell you the same thing.

***
Many of them don't specialize in anatomy and therefore are not as focused on
that aspect.

Dinotopia
at least gets a lot of the animals right.

*** A
testament to Jim's skill as an artist and willingness to research the
dinosaurs in his story.

I have
more of a problem with the professionals than with Hollywood. WE should ?clean
our house? before cleaning someone else?s. But that?ll never happen, the
majority of them either don?t care or are to busy working on their projects.

*** I
don't believe that the majority ( with exceptions ) don't care, but generally
the majority are too busy. If I had a year to handle the stuff Phil
Currie deals with in a week, I'd have a complete breakdown followed by years
of "flashback".

How
many professionals really accept what Steven Czerkas says? Or Greg or me for
that matter?

***
Come on now. . . we all know polarity is paleontology's middle name and I'd
have to think for a long, long while before I could come up with any
individual in this field that has not come under the knife labeled
"controversial". It's what drives this science forward and it's only
because some discussions digress into personal conflict that the science
sometimes suffers.

We
have to work harder because we are artist and not in the ?club? as the
professionals.

***I
don't see myself in competition with the "club", but rather as an ancillary
aide to the printed academic word.

You
need to do a professional paper (really you should, you know a lot) on a
subject and see how it?s accepted.

***
I've had offers, but am content and consumed by the projects I have
underway.

Or
stand back and listen to the professionals (like you said for the dinosaur
gallery) and see what they say. I can tell you what some think of me (I?ve
heard them second hand). If we, the artist, can?t help explain or get work
with professionals (except you, not saying anything against that, keep it up!)
then how can we be expected to do that with Hollywood?

***
I'm hardly a poster boy for paleo artists, but it would be nice if better
lines of communication could be established within the paleo
community.

Or
Museums as a whole. I?ve tried to work with Museums, but they keep turning me
down, and I know what I?m doing, more then them! (I hope). Like get the
drawings done right for the displays, but nothing, they have their own people.
So if a ?professional? goes to the museum, to help them get their displays
correct and is turned down, what hope do we have with other venues? I?ve tried
in big and small museums (and only the Mesa Southwest Museum used my work).

***
It's true that Museums are often a slave to their own bureaucracy and
therefore sometimes it's tricky to negotiate through the heirarchy and
red tape. "Patience Luke, use the force. . ." It can be a struggle
for people interested in paleo outside the ranks of the academia proper, but
my own experience has taught me that patience, persistance and
creativity eventually do pay off.

I keep
announcing on this list and Vert Paleo that I can get their animals right (I?m
not doing this to boost my ego, I just want the animals done right! That?s
it!) and nothing! Unless you work in color, I
suppose?

***
Color work does seem to dominate over monochromatic, however I still salivate
when I see some of the old, pen and ink, turn of the century technical
illustrations.

I've
been convinced for quite some time that you will find your "niche". It's
just a matter of timing. . .